From the Critique of Religion to the Critique of Fetishism

Marx’s system of thought is often reduced to a critique of political economy, yet its underlying logic is actually rooted in a more fundamental philosophical method, namely critique. The evolution of this methodological thread is manifested in Marx’s progression from his early critique of religion to his mature critique of commodity fetishism. These two are not separate from each other; rather, they possess a profound continuity and interconnection. The critique of religion is the starting point and paradigm of this critical journey, while the critique of fetishism is its endpoint and highest achievement; in a certain sense, the critique of fetishism is the radicalization of the critique of religion.

马克思的思想体系常被简化为政治经济学批判，然而其深层逻辑实则植根于一种更为根本的哲学即批判方法。这一方法线索的演进体现在马克思从早期对宗教的批判，到成熟时期对商品拜物教的批判之中。这两者并非彼此割裂，而是存在着深刻的延续性与关联性。宗教批判是这一批判历程的起点与范式，拜物教批判则是其终点与最高成就，拜物教批判在某种意义上正是宗教批判的彻底化。

Marx’s critical path began in the realm of religion, influenced both by the atmosphere of the times and by his affiliation with the Young Hegelians. Under the specific historical conditions of Germany in the 1840s, the critique of religion was a circuitous but radical form of political critique. The era in which the young Marx found himself coincided with the split of the Hegelian school and the rise of the Young Hegelians, placing him within the dense atmosphere of Young Hegelian religious criticism. Bruno Bauer and others regarded the critique of religion as the core task of human emancipation, believing that as long as the illusory nature of religion was exposed, human freedom could be achieved. Marx accepted this issue of the times but quickly transcended the limitations of the Young Hegelians. In his 1843 work “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction,” he put forward the famous assertion that “the critique of religion is the prerequisite of all critique.” This can be regarded as Marx’s declaration of the critique of religion. The core of Marx’s critique of religion lies in revealing the alienated essence of religion. In his view, religion is not simply error or deception, but a product of the alienation of humanity’s essential powers. He pointed out that religion is the “consciousness of an inverted world,” because it reflects an “inverted world.” [1]1 “Inverted world” (verkehrte Welt) is a Hegelian term Marx uses to describe a reality where social relations are turned upside down, so that what is derivative (e.g., the state, religion) appears as the primary and determining force. People living under oppression and enslavement construct a perfect and omnipotent God through faith. This is both an illusory compensation for real suffering and a way out within fantasy. For this reason, religion becomes the “opium of the people”; it alleviates pain, but it also numbs the people’s will to resist. Religion provides illusory happiness, making people content with their enslaved condition, thereby maintaining the inverted world that produces suffering. Marx believed that only by abolishing religion could the happiness of the people be realized. It is precisely on the basis of this understanding that Marx’s critique of religion necessarily leads to a critique of the real world, to a critique of the earthly realm.

马克思的批判之路始于宗教领域，这既受时代氛围的影响，也与他所属的青年黑格尔派密切相关。在德国19世纪40年代的特殊历史环境下，宗教批判是政治批判的一种迂回但激进的形式。青年马克思所处的时代背景，正值黑格尔学派分裂与青年黑格尔派兴起之时，处于青年黑格尔派宗教批判的浓厚氛围当中。布鲁诺·鲍威尔等人将宗教批判视为解放人类的核心任务，认为只要揭露宗教的虚幻性，就能实现人的自由。马克思接受了这一时代议题，但很快超越了青年黑格尔派的局限性。他在1843年的《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中提出了“对宗教的批判是其他一切批判的前提”这一著名论断。这可以说是马克思进行宗教批判的宣言。马克思宗教批判的核心在于揭示了宗教的异化本质。在他看来，宗教并非简单的错误或欺骗，而是人类本质力量异化的产物。他指出宗教是“颠倒的世界意识”，因为它反映的是一个“颠倒的世界”。人处于压迫与奴役之中，却通过信仰构造出完美且全能的神。这既是现实痛苦的虚幻补偿，也是幻象中的一种出路。正因如此，宗教成为“人民的鸦片”，它缓解痛苦，却也麻痹人民反抗的意志。宗教提供幻想的幸福，使人们安于被奴役的现状，从而维护了那个产生苦难的颠倒世界。马克思认为，只有废除宗教，才能实现人民的幸福。正是基于这一认识，使马克思的宗教批判必然导向对现实世界的批判，导向对尘世的批判。

In “On the Jewish Question,” Marx extended the critique of religion to the political sphere. He pointed out that the bourgeois revolution ostensibly liberated people from religion, but in reality it did not achieve genuine emancipation; instead, it caused people to live as two identities: “public person” and “private person.” [2]2 “Public person” and “private person” refer to Marx’s distinction in “On the Jewish Question” between the citizen of the political state (citoyen) and the egoistic individual of civil society (bourgeois). In the political state, people become abstract beings, nominally free and equal; yet once they return to civil society, they become selfish individuals driven by interests. This split is itself a form of alienation—politics seems to become a new layer of mist, obscuring the actual inequalities that exist.

在《论犹太人问题》里，马克思把对宗教的批判扩展到政治层面。他指出，资产阶级革命表面上把人从宗教里解放了出来，但实际上并没有实现真正的解放，反而让人活成了两种身份：“公人”和“私人”。在政治国家中，人成了一种抽象存在，名义上自由平等；可一旦回到市民社会，人又变成被利益牵着走的自私个体。这种割裂本身就是一种异化——政治仿佛变成一层新的迷雾，遮住了实际存在的不平等。

Marx discovered that the modern state itself also becomes an alienating force. Just as in religion people externalize their essential powers to God, in the political sphere people externalize their communal essence to the state. The state appears to represent the universal interest, but in reality it is merely the “night watchman” that safeguards the private property of the bourgeoisie. This political alienation is isomorphic with religious alienation: just as religion is the alienation of the human essence in the sacred sphere, the state is the alienation of human life in the political sphere. Both are a form of “abstraction,” an illusory resolution of real social contradictions.

马克思发现，现代国家本身也成为一种异化的力量。如同人在宗教中将自己的本质力量外化给上帝一样，人在政治领域中将自身的公共本质外化给国家。国家看似是普遍利益的代表，实则只是维护资产阶级私有财产的“守夜人”。这种政治异化与宗教异化具有同构性，正如宗教是人的本质在神圣领域的异化，国家是人的生活在政治领域的异化。两者都是一种“抽象”，是对现实社会矛盾的一种虚幻解决。

It is worth noting that during this period, Marx had already begun to extend the reach of critique into the economic sphere. In the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” he put forward the theory of “alienated labor.” Marx discovered that in capitalist economic life, a process isomorphic with religious alienation occurs. The more wealth the worker produces, the poorer he himself becomes; the more valuable the commodities he creates, the more he loses his own value. His product of labor confronts him as an alien, powerful object. This is just like the God that people pray to, which ultimately becomes an external force that oppresses them.

值得注意的是，在这一时期，马克思已经开始将批判的触角延伸至经济领域。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，他提出了“劳动异化”理论。马克思发现，在资本主义经济生活中，发生着与宗教异化同构的过程。劳动者生产的财富越多，他自己越贫穷；他创造的商品越有价值，自己越失去价值。他的劳动产品作为一种异己的、强大的对象与他相对立。这正如人祈祷的上帝，最终成为压迫人的外在力量。

The theory of alienated labor is the key bridge connecting the critique of religion and the critique of fetishism. It shows that not only in the sacred sphere, but also in the secular sphere of production, human creations are transformed into abstract forces hostile to humanity. Marx turned from the critique of “heaven” to the dissection of “civil society.” At this point, Marx had already grasped the core of the problem, namely the domination of the “concrete” by the “abstract,” but he had not yet revealed, in the scientific form of political economy, how this abstraction is necessarily generated within modern relations of production. This is precisely the task that the critique of fetishism was to accomplish.

异化劳动理论是连接宗教批判与拜物教批判的关键桥梁。它表明，不仅在神圣领域，而且在世俗的生产领域，人的创造物都在转变为敌视人的抽象力量。马克思从对“天国”的批判，转向对“市民社会”的解剖。此时，马克思已经抓住了问题的核心，即“抽象”对“具体”的统治，但他尚未在政治经济学的科学形态上揭示这种抽象是如何在现代生产关系中必然地生成的。这正是拜物教批判所要完成的任务。

With the deepening of his research into political economy, Marx systematically put forward the theory of fetishism in the “Grundrisse” (1857–1858) and “Capital,” marking the final maturity and completion of his critical theory. The critique of fetishism appears to be an entirely new theoretical creation, but in fact it has a profound internal connection with the early critique of religion; it is the deepening and concretization of the latter in the economic sphere. Marx distinguished three forms of fetishism: commodity fetishism, money fetishism, and capital fetishism. Commodity fetishism is the basic form, making people believe that the value of a commodity seems to be an inherent natural property of the object itself, rather than the congealed abstract human labor. Money fetishism goes a step further, making metallic money or paper money appear to possess an innate magical power to purchase all commodities, obscuring the social relational essence of money as the universal equivalent. Capital fetishism is the final developed form, making capital seem to possess a mysterious capacity for self-valorization, concealing the fact that surplus value originates from the unpaid appropriation of the worker’s surplus labor. The general formula of capital, M—C—M' (money—commodity—more money), creates an “automatic fetishism,” as if money “is born with the ability to breed, or at least, as long as it is lent out, it will breed.” [3]3 The phrase “born with the ability to breed” is Marx’s ironic description of the fetishistic belief that money can generate more money by itself, drawn from his analysis of interest-bearing capital in Volume 3 of Capital.

随着对政治经济学研究的深入，马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》和《资本论》中系统提出了拜物教理论，标志着其批判理论的最终成熟和完成。拜物教批判看似是一个全新的理论创造，实则与早期的宗教批判有着深刻的内在关联，是后者在经济学领域的深化和具体化。马克思区分了三种拜物教形式：商品拜物教、货币拜物教和资本拜物教。商品拜物教是基础形式，使人们认为商品的价值似乎是物固有的自然属性，而非抽象人类劳动的凝结。货币拜物教更进一步，使金属货币或纸币似乎天生具有购买一切商品的魔力，遮蔽了货币作为一般等价物的社会关系本质。资本拜物教是最终发展的形式，使资本似乎具有了自行增殖的神秘能力，掩盖了剩余价值源于无偿占有工人剩余劳动的事实。G—W—G'（货币—商品—更多货币）这一资本总公式，创造了一种“自动的拜物教”，仿佛货币“生来就能产仔，或者说，至少只要把它贷放出去，它就会产仔”。

Fetishism and religion share a structural similarity: in both cases, human creations come to dominate humans in return, and both are an inverted reflection of social relations in consciousness. But fetishism is more fundamental and more concealed than religion, because it is not a purely ideological illusion, but an illusion inherent in the objective social form itself. Fetishism is not a subjective misperception, but an objective illusion, directly rooted in the specific nature of the capitalist mode of production. There is a certain adaptability between religious forms and the socio-economic structure, and fetishism is precisely the “secular religion” of capitalist society. Marx’s critique of the phenomenon of fetishism can be seen as an extension of his early critique of religion. In the critique of religion, he focused on the relationship between God and humanity, while in the critique of fetishism, he extended this analysis to the relationship between capital and humanity. This continuity in method of thought reflects the coherence of Marx’s philosophical thinking. He believed that both religion and capitalist society are certain forms of alienation within human society, and that only through the exposure of these alienations can the critique of social reality and the pursuit of human emancipation be realized.

拜物教与宗教具有结构上的相似性，二者都是人的创造物反过来支配人，都是社会关系在意识中的颠倒反映。但拜物教比宗教更为根本和隐蔽，因为它不是纯粹的意识形态幻象，而是客观的社会形式本身所具有的幻象。拜物教不是主观错觉，而是客观错觉，直接根植于资本主义生产方式的特殊性质。宗教形式与社会经济结构之间存在某种适应性，而拜物教正是资本主义社会的“世俗宗教”。马克思对拜物教现象的批判可以看作对早期宗教批判的延伸。在宗教批判中，他关注的是神与人的关系，而在拜物教批判中，他则将这种分析扩展到资本与人的关系。这种思想方法上的延续体现了马克思哲学思维的连贯性。他认为，无论是宗教还是资本主义社会，都是人类社会中的某种异化现象，只有通过对这些异化的揭示，才能实现对社会现实的批判和对人类解放的追求。

Marx’s critique of religion gradually extended to the critique of commodity fetishism, and throughout his intellectual development there runs a profound main thread: he adhered to the critical method of historical materialism, inquiring into where those “abstract existences” that tower over human beings—whether God, value, or capital—actually come from. In Marx’s view, these seemingly natural existences are not innate but are rooted in humanity’s concrete historical practice and social relations. More importantly, he further pointed out how these abstractions, created by human hands themselves, gradually obscure their own origins and turn into an alien force that dominates and rules over human beings. The philosophical revolution Marx achieved was not the establishment of some new philosophical system, but the initiation of a continuous critique. The purpose of this critique is to expose all ideologies that disguise the social relations of a particular historical stage as an “eternal natural order”—whether they wear a sacred cloak or appear in a secular guise. From this perspective, the critique of religion is only the starting point; the theory of commodity fetishism is the peak of this critique. It reminds us that modern people must not only be liberated from the bondage of “God,” but also need to awaken from the enslavement by the “things” they themselves have created. Ultimately, the weapon of critique must be transformed into the critique of weapons, that is, by transforming the relations of production themselves that ceaselessly produce various kinds of “fetishism,” can the true liberation of humanity be achieved and a society no longer ruled by any abstract force be established. This is not only a thread in the history of thought, but also a profound diagnosis and critical manifesto of the existential conditions of our era that remains relevant to this day.

马克思对宗教的批判，逐步延伸至对商品拜物教的批判，其思想发展始终贯穿着一条深刻的主线：他坚持以历史唯物主义的批判方法，追问那些凌驾于人之上的“抽象存在”——无论是上帝、价值还是资本——究竟从何而来。在马克思看来，这些看似自然的存在，其实并非先天就有，而是根植于人类具体的历史实践与社会关系之中。更重要的是，他进一步指出，这些由人亲手创造出来的抽象物，如何逐渐遮蔽了自身的来源，反转过来成为支配人、统治人的异己力量。马克思所实现的哲学革命，不是建立起某种新的哲学体系，而是开启一种持续不断的批判。这种批判的目的是拆穿所有将某一历史阶段的社会关系伪装成“永恒自然秩序”的意识形态——不管它穿着神圣的外衣，还是以世俗的面目出现。从这个角度看，宗教批判只是起点，商品拜物教理论才是这一批判的高峰。它提醒我们，现代人不仅要从“神”的束缚中解放出来，更需要从自己创造的“物”的奴役中觉醒。最终，批判的武器必须转化为武器的批判，即通过变革那个不断生产出各种“拜物教”的生产关系本身，才能实现人的真正解放，建立一个不再被任何抽象力量所统治的社会。这不仅是一条思想史的线索，更是一份至今仍未过时的对我们时代生存境况的深刻诊断与批判宣言。

(The author is a doctoral student at the School of Marxism, Wuhan University of Technology)

（作者系武汉理工大学马克思主义学院博士研究生）